“….while the individual who is displaying the symbol may not be armed, the presence of the symbol provides an early warning indicator that you MAY be about to encounter an armed individual.”

It apparently never occurred to the Intelligence Section that perhaps we the people could use a warning that the presence of a badge provides an early warning that we are about to encounter an armed individual. While this may seem a bit sarcastic, it is certainly not unfair for Maryland citizens to have reason for concern when they are approached by an officer.

This is especially true when the officers are overly tense because they have been warned that a citizen with a decal or patch MAY be armed.

This Association asked James H. Green, of the Baltimore City Police Department to explain why the Baltimore City Police Department feels the need to profile persons who choose to support the U.S. Constitution.

Mr. Green responded with the following statement:

“I have spoken with our Criminal Intelligence Section and the bulletin was created in response to a number of recent inquires asking about the decal and its meaning and information generally provided to law enforcement about officer safety. All law enforcement agencies attempt to inform our officers or citizens as appropriate when inquiries such as this arise.

I certainly disagree with your characterization of “profiling.” Clearly the bulletin is informational and does not remotely suggest a suppression of Constitutional rights. In fact, as you are aware, many law enforcement personnel are members of the NRA or affiliated organizations.

As you are also aware, traffic stops are the single most dangerous encounter for law enforcement. It certainly is practice for law enforcement to ask operators about weapons for safety reasons only. The presence of a decal is NOT justification in itself for a traffic stop.

I hope that this addresses your inquiry and clears up any confusion about the bulletin.”

About:
Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc. (AGC), located in Marriottsville, Maryland. The Associated Gun Clubs of Baltimore, Inc. was formed on July 1, 1944 when a number of World War II veterans in the Baltimore, Maryland area began looking for a place for recreational and competitive shooting. They organized with several other Baltimore area shooting clubs to form the “AGC” Visit: www.associatedgunclubs.org

In Ohio, LEGAL gun carriers can be identified by running our license plate. If you have a LEGAL permit to carry a gun, your licenses will be linked. I find it interesting, because the ILLEGAL gun carriers are more likely to open fire on a cop. the LEGAL carriers know their information has already been identified.

The mentality of “He has a gun, so be careful!” is slightly akin to “He’s wearing a seat belt, so he may intend to crash into you!” The notion that the mercenaries of the state have the right to know if you’re armed, know where your gun is, and disarm you by default “for their protection” is fascist bunk. The idea that the king’s guards should ever be armed when the peasantry is not, though currently popular, is the mentality of slaves and tyrants. And to be blunt, if you are doing a job that makes you scared that the average motorist might pull a gun on you, maybe you should find another job. Personally, I’m not worried about every person that has a gun. But then, unlike some in “law enforcement,” I don’t routinely commit highway robbery, pointless stops and arrests, and assaults against non-violent people. So the average person on the street doesn’t have a reason to hate me or wish me harm.

Right on Larken! Besides the police have no requirement to protect citizens at all, this has been repeated at the Supreme Court level and in over twenty state court hearings. These rulings states that the ‘police job is to arrest code breakers..” In review of Coumbine and other actions where police response was warranted, they took the non action of waiting for SWAT Teams and other special units to arrive. These actions clearly show that those court rulings were in fact correct, becuase if they are to “serve and protect” this lack of action would result in them being sued. Remember serve and protect does not include you or me, the law via several court rulings have stated this. what the police have become through legislation is nothing more then “revenue agents’ for the state.

I have spoken to a number of friends who prefer to keep their disgust of government to themselves and not advertise their disgust with vehicles stickers, bumper or otherwise. As Mr. Swiontek stated above, to do so might “invite unwanted attention.”

For the last eight years I drove a small all white hatchback car. On each of its four sides (hood, rear liftgate, drivers door, and the passenger door) I had 10″ diameter matching bright blue peace signs with an anti-US-war slogan imprinted on each one.

I was never pulled over even once, however, if I had been I would have taken out my Pocket Constitution and quoted the 1st Amendment to the officer — which Amendment reiterates my right to display what I want on my vehicle without fear of reprisals.

Do I “want” such police “attention?” Of course not. But will that stop me from displaying my opinions in support of peace and liberty? Absolutely not.

“The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is absolute. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government. A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power.” – US Fifth Court of Appeals in the case of Cockrum v State

Here’s what I don’t get: per Cockrum (cited above by ‘Don’) it appears absolutely clear that the right to bear arms is innate; it does not derive from the State (or state), and – per the 2nd Amendment – must not be infringed. Not ‘must not be infringed except if we decide it must’ or anything of that nature. The text is absolutely clear and only a whip-licker would try to embroider in wiggle room for the State.

So why do people persist in talking about ‘legal’ permits? (I’m looking at you, ‘heather’)

Any entity that requires a permit to obtain or carry a weapon, is infringing the INNATE right to bear arms.

If the legal system is not prepared to abide by its own precedents AND pay proper service to the document set up to restrict the powers of the central government, then free men ought to pay attention to what Jefferson wrote about systems that need to be overthrown.

Here in Australia, the population has been more or less completely disarmed; the only people with weapons are criminals (‘criminal’ means anybody who earns their crust by force or fraud… which I take to include the organised crime gang that forces obeisance to the whim of the tax-eaters).

Fortunately, the State (globally) has done such an abysmal job of managing public finances, that it now faces a requirement to jack up taxes to levels that will result in its overthrow: future unfunded liabilities for politicians’ promises are now so large that it would require tax rates of over 65%, PLUS a reduction of government services to literally zero, to balance future budgets.

People won’t work for 3 days in 5 in order to pay the parasites who live in palaces at our expense.

We are nearing ‘Jefferson Territory’ globally… and folks like me do what we can to degrade government’s information-gathering and -storage apparatus in preparation for that day. (Go, Anonymous!)

Don:
“I do solemnly declare upon my honor and conscience that I will act at all times to the best of my ability and knowledge in a manner befitting a police officer.

“I will preserve the dignity and will respect the rights of all individuals.

“I will discharge my duties with integrity and will promote understanding and conciliation.

“I will exercise my authority as a police officer in the manner intended by the law.

“I will faithfully obey the orders of my superiors and will be ready to confront danger in the line of duty.

“I will act with honesty, courtesy and regard for the welfare of others, and will endeavor to develop the esprit de corps.

“I will act justly and impartially and with propriety towards my fellow officers.”

The message in this oath that I would like to point out is that our law enforcement officers are here to serve and protect the people of the community. “Protect” doesn’t have to be spoken – when an officer goes in harm’s way, he IS protecting you, me and the community. Quit splitting hairs.

So sorry – the above was for Chris Morgan and his pal Larken. (I would love to know how one can tell who is an “average citizen”).

For Don – Who loves war? (save some folks inside the Beltway – but we know many of them are whack jobs). Go right ahead kum ba yahing your way through life – though I sure wouldn’t want your kind to have my back- but the real concern, if I cared about you, is the one you advertise about yourself. If you’re going through your teenage angst stage of growth and development, knock yourself out. Otherwise, grow up.

You asked me “who loves war”? Now Mimi, I did not mean for my personal example above to get you or this conversation way off track. But to answer your question I will say that it is many governments of the world, corporations, central bankers, and the UN – among others – who love war.

Now as far as you saying that I should grow up, I will tell you Mimi that I am a disabled Vietnam-era vet, and I did my growing up a LONG time ago.

You wrote, “Go right ahead kum ba yahing your way through life – though I sure wouldn’t want your kind to have my back- but the real concern, if I cared about you, is the one you advertise about yourself.” Honestly Mimi, I don’t even know what any of that means, so I can’t even comment on that.

But finally Mimi, you wrote above “The message in this oath that I would like to point out is that our law enforcement officers are here to serve and protect the people of the community.” Well obviously Mimi, you have not taken notice of various recent US court decisions, which have stated emphatically that law enforcement officers are not duty-bound to either serve or protect the people. Period.

And me personally Mimi? As an honorably discharged US veteran, I took an oath over 40 years ago to uphold and defend the Constitution; an oath which did not expire with my military discharge.

I have since upheld and reinforced that oath, by taking a new oath at Oath Keepers – and I encourage all active duty and retired law enforcement officers and military to go read Oath Keepers’ oath and take it themselves.

“A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.” -Sigmund Freud, General Introduction to Psychoanalysis (1952)

“…while the individual who is displaying the symbol may not be armed, the presence of the symbol provides an early warning indicator that you MAY be about to encounter an armed individual.”
I don’t see anything in that statement that suppresses the second amendment. It’s not like the decal outright says “support the second amendment” or something along the lines of that, its pretty obscure. I don’t see anything wrong with letting police not only know the meaning of the decal, but that the person displaying the decal may be armed. It’s pointing out the obvious that this person supports gun ownership and, therefore, is likely to own or even be carrying a gun on them. I could see how the wording of the statement can offend people, but I understand where the statement is coming from and believe that the intentions were good. Let me know if you see it differently.

Having a 2nd Amendment decal only means that that person is a follower and believer of the Second Amendment. Not that he/she is carrying a weapon. Baltimore police is sending the wrong message to it’s officers.

Although, the police do have to be cautious whenever they do a stop. It is a shame the police have to be so pumped up for a stop. But this society has gone in that direction. I do feel that our police departments are our friends, and the majority of the citizens would back a good cop.

If you are a CCW, when stopped by the police, always give both your CCW license, and your drivers license together. Always do what the officer says. Don’t be disrespectful or talk back. You shouldn’t have any problems, and the police officer will feel safe. If you are packing heat, immediately tell the officer. when you show your CCW license.

Being a regular American citizen (Patriot), I do believe the police officers in general are there to protect each of us, and the less we can to make them feel less-tense in all situations the better things will go.

I vaguely remember back in the late eighties that Maryland banned the “Baby on Board” window hangers in cars. The official reason was that they obstructed a driver’s view. But before the law was passed, there was more chatter about the spoof window hangers, like “.357 on Board.”

This goes right along with the FBI’s release to Police around the country of what to look for concerning “domestic terrorists”. Some of the things that concern the FBI and police that someone might be a domestic terrorist are, but not limited to: NRA (or other pro-gun, pro Second Amendment) stickers on a vehicle, third party candidate stickers, stickers the show support of the Constitution, any person who quotes the Constitution or the Founding Fathers a lot, someone who quotes the Bible a lot, VETERANS, abortion protesters, those who protest the government or it’s policies, and the list goes on and on.

Nice ideal. Really. … But does displaying this type of decal negate the whole reason and legal basis for C o n c e a l e d C a r r y? Wouldn’t the decal compromise a legally CCW-permitted citizen into essentially…. being perceived or interpretted by a well-intending LEO as someone who is O p e n C a r r y i n g? … Which may not be legal depending on what state you’re in.

20 years as a big city police officer 10 years as a S.W.A.T operastor. I saw this warning about a year ago, and was like WTF. now with recent events I just ordered 3 stickers (for both cars and for my motorcycle)

“Bruce Grant on June 8, 2011 at 8:25 PM said:
I understand Maryland is the only state that does not include the right to keep and bear arms in their constitution.
What do you expect from the police forces of a people’s republic?”

It doesn’t have to Bruce. Article 2 of the Maryland declaration of Rights (the first part of our Constitution states:

“Art. 2. The Constitution of the United States, and the Laws made, or which shall be made, in pursuance thereof, and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, are, and shall be the Supreme Law of the State; and the Judges of this State, and all the People of this State, are, and shall be bound thereby; anything in the Constitution or Law of this State to the contrary notwithstanding.”